10 ms·

Mozart Effect

84 points by marcodiego 4y ago

jancsika 4y ago
The best evidence for the Mozart effect is the effect of W.A. Mozart's music on the music written by W.A. Mozart. Compare, say, W.A. Mozart's Symphony no. 25 in G minor, to W.A. Mozart's Symphony no. 40 in G minor. It cannot be denied that W.A. Mozart-- having heard fourteen other W.A. Mozart symphonies in the interim-- was able to produce a second G minor symphony with greater acuity in both horizontal and vertical musico-spatial puzzle-solving. Even within the 1st movement of W.A. Mozart's Symphony no. 40 in G minor, the Mozart effect may be heard. For example, in the development section W.A. Mozart alters a single pitch in main theme that creates horizontal musico-spatial variety while also speeding up the rate at which sonic verticalities change. Such a clever thematic variation would have been statistically unlikely if W.A. Mozart hadn't already been listening to the 1st theme of the 1st movement of Symphony no. 40 in G minor by W.A. Mozart. W.A. Mozart's output is filled with examples like these. In conclusion, the data is in: listening to W.A. Mozart will temporarily[1] boost your W.A. Mozart. 1: Up to 1791, that is. :(
- hilbert42 4y ago
  1: Up to 1791, that is. :( Yeah, he had a damn hide expiring that early. :(
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  Anything with a sample size of one is essentially meaningless. Until you successfully clone W.A. Mozart and make some of them write symphonies practicing Mozart and some practicing other composers, we can just as comfortably say it was chance that led to the improvement in W.A. Mozart's works.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    "Anything with a sample size of one is essentially meaningless." So then how do you judge works of art when almost universally there is only one sample of an artwork? By definition, each is unique. Is then judging Da Vinci's Mona Lisa a waste of time? If so, then why haven't we scrapped these old decaying paintings many years ago? The answer is obvious and simple: an object - or anything for that matter - whether it's one or many - possesses intrinsic qualities and values - excellence, etc. - and it's those intrinsic values that we're discussing here. These are metaphysical concepts and cannot be simply processed as numerical statistics. (They're 'simple notions' and thus cannot divided further, nor processed mathematically.)
    - maybenot2 4y ago
      Or, we judge one of a kind art in comparison with other qualities of our times. Using ad hoc metaphysical concepts to justify objectivity in aesthetics is discarding the implications of the society. A piece of art can't have value in emptiness, it needs a context.
      - hilbert42 4y ago
        Notions like 'good' have no measure, likewise nor does 'very good' add to that, its 'extent' is as equally indeterminate. Thus any judgment made in respect of them is relative, and as you say, we have to use ad hoc metaphysical concepts to discuss them if we're to have any meaningful discussions. You're right, context is everything and the theoretical extrapolation of the value of something or anything in the absence of some reference - emptiness as you say - means that there's nothing with true intrinsic value. Strictly speaking, things only have perceived metaphysical values of our own making. That said, human existence brings with it the concept of value; as humans, almost everything we think about or do is value-laden. Moreover, it does seem that the concept of 'value' or 'importance' is intrinsic to the Hunan condition, somehow it's built in. We could start with food and say our 'value' system derives out of biological necessity and then extrapolate from there. That's a long-argued philosophical discussion but it's of little point pursuing the topic here. So what do we do when discussing music and other aesthetic subjects as here in this context? This too is complex and it's already a subbranch of philosophy but again it doesn't help much here. As I see it, in discussions such as this, trying to be be totally objective as if it were say a formal/logical argument between Russell and Whitehead serves little point. Thus, it seems to me the most logical way to discuss such matters is from a sociological perspective. So let's look at the facts. - Mozart and some other composers from the Enlightenment and Romantic eras, Bach, Hayden, Beethoven and a few others have perennially withstood the test of time. That is, for several hundred years their works have remained consistently popular with lay listeners, musicians and scholars alike. Moreover, there's little or no evidence that this popularity is waining in certain sectors of the population. - Yes, classical (for want of a better word) music is in decline in percentage terms when compared to much modern/pop music. The reasons for this are complex, some are obvious, others not. What we are certain of is that the suspect metric of comparing say the popularity of 'pop' versus 'classical' music tells us nothing about the 'intrinsic' value of either (sorry to use that term again but it's in inverted commas). - That said, then where do the key compositions from key 'classical' composers stand in what's generally accepted as the Musical Corpus? As mentioned, we cannot put an objective measure on them but we can say that their longevity, popularity and the cultural infrastructure built up around them - from orchestras to piano manufacturers, etc. - have ensured their importance within society in similar ways to the works of Shakespeare, Goethe or Plato - his Republic etc.; that is, they are already well-known cultural icons and have been so for a very long time. Whether any specific individual likes 'classical' music or not is irrelevant as, at present, these musical works have accumulated sufficient cultural baggage/capital to ensure their current status remains for the foreseeable future. Discussing their popularity over the very longterm serves little purpose except to say that the deemed or perceived merit of certain works by say Plato are such that they have been kept 'alive and in print' so to speak for over two thousand years, thus history demonstrates it's possible - nothing more! - Whether any of this music is of a quality and substance that enables it to be biologically beneficial to humans remains to be demonstrated, as yet nothing's proven. I'd only add that certain pieces from this classical repertoire are able to generate such an emotional effect within me that they manifest in noticeable physical reactions and I know that I'm far from being alone in having such experiences when listening to music. Why music - or why specific musical works - have the power to so affect certain people in this way and not so others isn't still clear and it's still a matter of current research.
- defrost 4y ago
  It's important to acknowledge the journey from the 1773 Symphony No. 25 to the 1788 Symphony No. 40 was achieved via the 1782 waypoint of Leck mich im Arsch, the canon in B-flat major for six voices as a three part round. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch
  - gjm11 4y ago
    "Mozart died in 1791 and his widow, Constanze Mozart, sent the manuscripts of the canons to publishers Breitkopf & Härtel in 1799 saying that they would need to be adapted for publication." Yeah, maybe just a little. (They turned "Leck mich im Arsch" into "Laßt froh uns sein". Cowards.)
- l5870uoo9y 4y ago
  Side note, Mozart was only 17 when he wrote Symphony no. 25 and 32 when he wrote no. 40.
  - gjm11 4y ago
    "It is a sobering thought, for example, that by the time Mozart was my age ... he had been dead for six years." -- Tom Lehrer.
- amelius 4y ago
  Isn't that just caused by the composer becoming more experienced?
  - gpvos 4y ago
    That was, rather obviously, the joke.
- goodmachine 4y ago
  Nailed it.
- hgs3 4y ago
  I wonder if the choice of instruments matters? Mozart is one of the more popular composes that is routinely covered by neoclassical metal shredders. Compare the original composition to this metal cover of Symphony no. 40 in G minor [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6YDNEdSTac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6YDNEdSTac
Herodotus38 4y ago
The term “Mozart effect” can mean different things but one of the most objective and repeated findings is the effect at reducing seizure interictal (means between seizures) epileptiform activity which is incredibly interesting. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95922-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95922-7
sharmin123 4y ago
kqr 4y ago
That said, if I remember correctly, there's a more recent thread of research linking tonally and rhythmically complex jazz to benefits similar to learning a second language early. The idea is that very small humans interpret sufficiently complicated (in the information theoretic sense) music as a language. Anecdotally, my infant son could be entertained by jazz when few other things worked. He really listened to it. I don't remember how credible the evidence is and I've lost the references I had. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
- butterNaN 4y ago
  FWIW, I can attest to 'music as a language' experience - in two different conversational modes. First is the obvious one: Where the entities conversing is the music and myself. I think most people can relate to this unidirectional experience. Second, and less observed mode, is when consuming mostly-instrumental type of music. Here the entities 'conversing' have to be inferred, but most often my mind will settle on giving each instrument a personality. In this mode, I'm merely a bystander listening in on a conversation. I often automatically imagine these instruments talking to each other, and the act of listening is simply an act of interpreting what they are talking. This would be nothing new to many people reading this, but I know many people who often don't listen to music. Check this short clip if you want to play with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-QV8Z8Pww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-QV8Z8Pww
- seri4l 4y ago
  Music is a language, or rather a type of language. Depending on the culture, it has 5 or 12 symbols (tones), and each musical culture has its grammatical structure: in Western music most sequential 8 symbol arrangements are gibberish, others convey different emotions, most of those sequences don't go well together, some do and so on. It's a development of the ancient language we use to communicate mood and intent by varying the pitch and rhythm of voice while speaking. Useless to transmit concepts, but excellent to transmit emotions.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    In general there's no way to distinguish between: I'm mad (crazy), I'm constipated, I'm angry, babbling (playing random notes), [a sequence of notes played for the disharmony itself], ... there's not sufficient agreement in meaning to be a language.
wawjgreen 4y ago
hehehe. what a bundle of hogwash. IQ test = flawed. effect of music on intelligence = dubious. Whether Mozart qualifies as good music = dubious.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  the first two are indeed dubious. But if anything qualifies objectively as good music it's Mozart. Together with Beethoven and Bach he's up there as the most important classical composer and unlike the latter I think easy to appreciate by people who don't listen to a lot of classical music.
  - wawjgreen 4y ago
    according to what standard? subjective taste do not a standard make.
    - hilbert42 4y ago
      Perhaps not. But the word standard has many meanings and inflections - and I can say that as someone who has served on technical standards committees. So what's your definition of the word? Perhaps when mulling over the question you should keep in mind that Mozart's music has been at or near the top of both the listening and performance repertoire since 1791 and there isn't any hint of his popularity diminishing any time soon. 231 years at the top requires some some beating. If popularity and the word standard are in anyway connected then with Mozart's music it's no contest. Type 'Mozart' into YouTube and see how may hits you get. Now, exactly what is your definition of the word standard?
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        > ... you should keep in mind that Mozart's music has been at or near the top of both the listening and performance repertoire since 1791 Why is that? Is that because it is objectively good, or is that because we *think* it's good because everyone tells us it's good?
hilbert42 4y ago
I've never experienced my IQ increase when listening to Mozart or I'd be listening to his music 24/7 nonstop. ;-) ...But then there's that other Mozart effect experienced by those of us who know and love his music. It cannot be adequately described but only conveyed from one another by knowledge of the fact. The theologian Karl Barth once quipped 'On the day God made Mozart he overdid the goodness essence' - and we know exactly what he meant.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  I do not agree that it can not be described. Maybe said group lacks the means to describe it, but I believe objectively there should be a way to describe it and maybe even isolate it. Is it specific only to Mozart's music? What if we use an AI to generate Mozart like music? Music AI was a thing before AI was a modern mainstream term (1 , note the date:1997). With a large enough sample set, eventually, if there is a signal we should be able to detect it. (1) https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach-no-a-computer-wrote-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach...
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    "I do not agree that it can not be described." Numerous cases show that few people if any ever fully agree when they use normal language to describe the effects of music on their psyche. The issue is the same whether it's Mozart's music or that of others. If AI generated music of comparable quality to that of Mozart's then I'm certain that I'd be equally satisfied. By that I mean I've no special allegiance to Mozart the person per se (after all, he was a bit before my time so I never knew him personally). The same goes for Bach and others. :-)
dcow 4y ago
I suspect there actually is a freakenomics-style correlation between parents who introduce their kids to classical music and parents who are more generally concerned about the mental development and success of their children, though. And thus kids that grow up in such a household may be better prepared for standardized testing.
- sabas123 4y ago
  Why do you think so as the page literally goes on stating that the results are non- reproducible and we're heavily over exaggerated (not by the researcher though)
  - dcow 4y ago
    The page says that listening to Mozart does not, itself, make you smarter (contrary to the pop culture understanding). I’m saying I wouldn't be surprised if growing up in a household where classical music is present nets you a better outcome on average because of the many other confounding factors. If you read chapter 5 in Freakenomics you’ll understand what I’m talking about.
butterNaN 4y ago
I am starting to question if "Intelligence", in popular understanding, is even a valid construct. What our society associates with 'intelligence' is simply an ability to solve specific set of problem. If your situation demands a different set of problems (which is often, in real life), then your "IQ" is useless.
- arketyp 4y ago
  IQ tries to measure the g factor which is the empirical correlation of performance between precisely a broad variety of tasks.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Another way to look at IQ is as a social adequation factor. People solving IQ problems properly understand the questions, have been exposed to the right concepts to solve them and know how to answer. These capacities aren’t pure intelligence per se, but stay a good indicator of someone’s education and if they’ll traditionally fit in our societies. Basically, it is the perfect measure for clubs like MENSA.
amelius 4y ago
There's another such theory: when a beautiful woman enters the room, the IQ of men temporarily drops by several points. I wonder if these effects can cancel.
- dismantlethesun 4y ago
  I know the first part of your statement is half a joke but I want to address it anyways. The issue at hand is that human beings can’t multitask so any distraction from the main task leads to poorer performance. The sudden entrance of a beauty, loud noises (open offices), bright lights, stress can all be forms of distraction and minimizing those can be as useful in the long term for performance as minimizing more overt distractions. Your brain can ignore all of the above to a certain extent if it’s chronic. Which is why beauty becomes banal, open offices tolerable, and stress simply something to be banked away until vacation or burnout.
  - joeamroo 4y ago
    I had similar idea, if women are such a distraction in islamic countries (I'm a muslim fyi) then surely making their beauty as banal as possible by allowing them to express it rather than conceal it would serve the purpose of modesty/ignoring distractions?
- kaichanvong 4y ago
  in today's society there is twitter, "social-networking" instantly (sometimes stupidly) in chat messages and of course scripted video and film. A great conversation to avoid this effect!
  - amelius 4y ago
    How about ads?
    - kaichanvong 4y ago
      some things can be similar to "film"
8bitsrule 4y ago
Call it the 'great music' effect, and compare long-term close listeners to superficial listeners, and then I'll be all ears about the 'enhancements' to be gained. Music is a universal language of feelings. Some speak it haltingly, with maybe some 'hot flashes'. Some readily speak fluently with such nuance, grace, meaning, that profound experiences result. Regardless of genre, that language and its refinements can recognized by many who have listened closely enough to comprehend. Each accomplished composer has a connection with some authentic source.

84 points by marcodiego 4y ago

The best evidence for the Mozart effect is the effect of W.A. Mozart's music on the music written by W.A. Mozart. Compare, say, W.A. Mozart's Symphony no. 25 in G minor, to W.A. Mozart's Symphony no. 40 in G minor. It cannot be denied that W.A. Mozart-- having heard fourteen other W.A. Mozart symphonies in the interim-- was able to produce a second G minor symphony with greater acuity in both horizontal and vertical musico-spatial puzzle-solving. Even within the 1st movement of W.A. Mozart's Symphony no. 40 in G minor, the Mozart effect may be heard. For example, in the development section W.A. Mozart alters a single pitch in main theme that creates horizontal musico-spatial variety while also speeding up the rate at which sonic verticalities change. Such a clever thematic variation would have been statistically unlikely if W.A. Mozart hadn't already been listening to the 1st theme of the 1st movement of Symphony no. 40 in G minor by W.A. Mozart. W.A. Mozart's output is filled with examples like these. In conclusion, the data is in: listening to W.A. Mozart will temporarily[1] boost your W.A. Mozart. 1: Up to 1791, that is. :(

hilbert42 4y ago
1: Up to 1791, that is. :( Yeah, he had a damn hide expiring that early. :(
boomboomsubban 4y ago
Anything with a sample size of one is essentially meaningless. Until you successfully clone W.A. Mozart and make some of them write symphonies practicing Mozart and some practicing other composers, we can just as comfortably say it was chance that led to the improvement in W.A. Mozart's works.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  "Anything with a sample size of one is essentially meaningless." So then how do you judge works of art when almost universally there is only one sample of an artwork? By definition, each is unique. Is then judging Da Vinci's Mona Lisa a waste of time? If so, then why haven't we scrapped these old decaying paintings many years ago? The answer is obvious and simple: an object - or anything for that matter - whether it's one or many - possesses intrinsic qualities and values - excellence, etc. - and it's those intrinsic values that we're discussing here. These are metaphysical concepts and cannot be simply processed as numerical statistics. (They're 'simple notions' and thus cannot divided further, nor processed mathematically.)
  - maybenot2 4y ago
    Or, we judge one of a kind art in comparison with other qualities of our times. Using ad hoc metaphysical concepts to justify objectivity in aesthetics is discarding the implications of the society. A piece of art can't have value in emptiness, it needs a context.
    - hilbert42 4y ago
      Notions like 'good' have no measure, likewise nor does 'very good' add to that, its 'extent' is as equally indeterminate. Thus any judgment made in respect of them is relative, and as you say, we have to use ad hoc metaphysical concepts to discuss them if we're to have any meaningful discussions. You're right, context is everything and the theoretical extrapolation of the value of something or anything in the absence of some reference - emptiness as you say - means that there's nothing with true intrinsic value. Strictly speaking, things only have perceived metaphysical values of our own making. That said, human existence brings with it the concept of value; as humans, almost everything we think about or do is value-laden. Moreover, it does seem that the concept of 'value' or 'importance' is intrinsic to the Hunan condition, somehow it's built in. We could start with food and say our 'value' system derives out of biological necessity and then extrapolate from there. That's a long-argued philosophical discussion but it's of little point pursuing the topic here. So what do we do when discussing music and other aesthetic subjects as here in this context? This too is complex and it's already a subbranch of philosophy but again it doesn't help much here. As I see it, in discussions such as this, trying to be be totally objective as if it were say a formal/logical argument between Russell and Whitehead serves little point. Thus, it seems to me the most logical way to discuss such matters is from a sociological perspective. So let's look at the facts. - Mozart and some other composers from the Enlightenment and Romantic eras, Bach, Hayden, Beethoven and a few others have perennially withstood the test of time. That is, for several hundred years their works have remained consistently popular with lay listeners, musicians and scholars alike. Moreover, there's little or no evidence that this popularity is waining in certain sectors of the population. - Yes, classical (for want of a better word) music is in decline in percentage terms when compared to much modern/pop music. The reasons for this are complex, some are obvious, others not. What we are certain of is that the suspect metric of comparing say the popularity of 'pop' versus 'classical' music tells us nothing about the 'intrinsic' value of either (sorry to use that term again but it's in inverted commas). - That said, then where do the key compositions from key 'classical' composers stand in what's generally accepted as the Musical Corpus? As mentioned, we cannot put an objective measure on them but we can say that their longevity, popularity and the cultural infrastructure built up around them - from orchestras to piano manufacturers, etc. - have ensured their importance within society in similar ways to the works of Shakespeare, Goethe or Plato - his Republic etc.; that is, they are already well-known cultural icons and have been so for a very long time. Whether any specific individual likes 'classical' music or not is irrelevant as, at present, these musical works have accumulated sufficient cultural baggage/capital to ensure their current status remains for the foreseeable future. Discussing their popularity over the very longterm serves little purpose except to say that the deemed or perceived merit of certain works by say Plato are such that they have been kept 'alive and in print' so to speak for over two thousand years, thus history demonstrates it's possible - nothing more! - Whether any of this music is of a quality and substance that enables it to be biologically beneficial to humans remains to be demonstrated, as yet nothing's proven. I'd only add that certain pieces from this classical repertoire are able to generate such an emotional effect within me that they manifest in noticeable physical reactions and I know that I'm far from being alone in having such experiences when listening to music. Why music - or why specific musical works - have the power to so affect certain people in this way and not so others isn't still clear and it's still a matter of current research.
defrost 4y ago
It's important to acknowledge the journey from the 1773 Symphony No. 25 to the 1788 Symphony No. 40 was achieved via the 1782 waypoint of Leck mich im Arsch, the canon in B-flat major for six voices as a three part round. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch
- gjm11 4y ago
  "Mozart died in 1791 and his widow, Constanze Mozart, sent the manuscripts of the canons to publishers Breitkopf & Härtel in 1799 saying that they would need to be adapted for publication." Yeah, maybe just a little. (They turned "Leck mich im Arsch" into "Laßt froh uns sein". Cowards.)
l5870uoo9y 4y ago
Side note, Mozart was only 17 when he wrote Symphony no. 25 and 32 when he wrote no. 40.
- gjm11 4y ago
  "It is a sobering thought, for example, that by the time Mozart was my age ... he had been dead for six years." -- Tom Lehrer.
amelius 4y ago
Isn't that just caused by the composer becoming more experienced?
- gpvos 4y ago
  That was, rather obviously, the joke.
goodmachine 4y ago
Nailed it.
hgs3 4y ago
I wonder if the choice of instruments matters? Mozart is one of the more popular composes that is routinely covered by neoclassical metal shredders. Compare the original composition to this metal cover of Symphony no. 40 in G minor [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6YDNEdSTac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6YDNEdSTac

Herodotus38 4y ago

The term “Mozart effect” can mean different things but one of the most objective and repeated findings is the effect at reducing seizure interictal (means between seizures) epileptiform activity which is incredibly interesting. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95922-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95922-7

sharmin123 4y ago

kqr 4y ago

That said, if I remember correctly, there's a more recent thread of research linking tonally and rhythmically complex jazz to benefits similar to learning a second language early. The idea is that very small humans interpret sufficiently complicated (in the information theoretic sense) music as a language. Anecdotally, my infant son could be entertained by jazz when few other things worked. He really listened to it. I don't remember how credible the evidence is and I've lost the references I had. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

butterNaN 4y ago
FWIW, I can attest to 'music as a language' experience - in two different conversational modes. First is the obvious one: Where the entities conversing is the music and myself. I think most people can relate to this unidirectional experience. Second, and less observed mode, is when consuming mostly-instrumental type of music. Here the entities 'conversing' have to be inferred, but most often my mind will settle on giving each instrument a personality. In this mode, I'm merely a bystander listening in on a conversation. I often automatically imagine these instruments talking to each other, and the act of listening is simply an act of interpreting what they are talking. This would be nothing new to many people reading this, but I know many people who often don't listen to music. Check this short clip if you want to play with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-QV8Z8Pww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-QV8Z8Pww
seri4l 4y ago
Music is a language, or rather a type of language. Depending on the culture, it has 5 or 12 symbols (tones), and each musical culture has its grammatical structure: in Western music most sequential 8 symbol arrangements are gibberish, others convey different emotions, most of those sequences don't go well together, some do and so on. It's a development of the ancient language we use to communicate mood and intent by varying the pitch and rhythm of voice while speaking. Useless to transmit concepts, but excellent to transmit emotions.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  In general there's no way to distinguish between: I'm mad (crazy), I'm constipated, I'm angry, babbling (playing random notes), [a sequence of notes played for the disharmony itself], ... there's not sufficient agreement in meaning to be a language.

wawjgreen 4y ago

hehehe. what a bundle of hogwash. IQ test = flawed. effect of music on intelligence = dubious. Whether Mozart qualifies as good music = dubious.

Barrin92 4y ago
the first two are indeed dubious. But if anything qualifies objectively as good music it's Mozart. Together with Beethoven and Bach he's up there as the most important classical composer and unlike the latter I think easy to appreciate by people who don't listen to a lot of classical music.
- wawjgreen 4y ago
  according to what standard? subjective taste do not a standard make.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    Perhaps not. But the word standard has many meanings and inflections - and I can say that as someone who has served on technical standards committees. So what's your definition of the word? Perhaps when mulling over the question you should keep in mind that Mozart's music has been at or near the top of both the listening and performance repertoire since 1791 and there isn't any hint of his popularity diminishing any time soon. 231 years at the top requires some some beating. If popularity and the word standard are in anyway connected then with Mozart's music it's no contest. Type 'Mozart' into YouTube and see how may hits you get. Now, exactly what is your definition of the word standard?
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      > ... you should keep in mind that Mozart's music has been at or near the top of both the listening and performance repertoire since 1791 Why is that? Is that because it is objectively good, or is that because we *think* it's good because everyone tells us it's good?

hilbert42 4y ago

I've never experienced my IQ increase when listening to Mozart or I'd be listening to his music 24/7 nonstop. ;-) ...But then there's that other Mozart effect experienced by those of us who know and love his music. It cannot be adequately described but only conveyed from one another by knowledge of the fact. The theologian Karl Barth once quipped 'On the day God made Mozart he overdid the goodness essence' - and we know exactly what he meant.

alexvoda 4y ago
I do not agree that it can not be described. Maybe said group lacks the means to describe it, but I believe objectively there should be a way to describe it and maybe even isolate it. Is it specific only to Mozart's music? What if we use an AI to generate Mozart like music? Music AI was a thing before AI was a modern mainstream term (1 , note the date:1997). With a large enough sample set, eventually, if there is a signal we should be able to detect it. (1) https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach-no-a-computer-wrote-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach...
- hilbert42 4y ago
  "I do not agree that it can not be described." Numerous cases show that few people if any ever fully agree when they use normal language to describe the effects of music on their psyche. The issue is the same whether it's Mozart's music or that of others. If AI generated music of comparable quality to that of Mozart's then I'm certain that I'd be equally satisfied. By that I mean I've no special allegiance to Mozart the person per se (after all, he was a bit before my time so I never knew him personally). The same goes for Bach and others. :-)

dcow 4y ago

I suspect there actually is a freakenomics-style correlation between parents who introduce their kids to classical music and parents who are more generally concerned about the mental development and success of their children, though. And thus kids that grow up in such a household may be better prepared for standardized testing.

sabas123 4y ago
Why do you think so as the page literally goes on stating that the results are non- reproducible and we're heavily over exaggerated (not by the researcher though)
- dcow 4y ago
  The page says that listening to Mozart does not, itself, make you smarter (contrary to the pop culture understanding). I’m saying I wouldn't be surprised if growing up in a household where classical music is present nets you a better outcome on average because of the many other confounding factors. If you read chapter 5 in Freakenomics you’ll understand what I’m talking about.

butterNaN 4y ago

I am starting to question if "Intelligence", in popular understanding, is even a valid construct. What our society associates with 'intelligence' is simply an ability to solve specific set of problem. If your situation demands a different set of problems (which is often, in real life), then your "IQ" is useless.

arketyp 4y ago
IQ tries to measure the g factor which is the empirical correlation of performance between precisely a broad variety of tasks.
makeitdouble 4y ago
Another way to look at IQ is as a social adequation factor. People solving IQ problems properly understand the questions, have been exposed to the right concepts to solve them and know how to answer. These capacities aren’t pure intelligence per se, but stay a good indicator of someone’s education and if they’ll traditionally fit in our societies. Basically, it is the perfect measure for clubs like MENSA.

amelius 4y ago

There's another such theory: when a beautiful woman enters the room, the IQ of men temporarily drops by several points. I wonder if these effects can cancel.

dismantlethesun 4y ago
I know the first part of your statement is half a joke but I want to address it anyways. The issue at hand is that human beings can’t multitask so any distraction from the main task leads to poorer performance. The sudden entrance of a beauty, loud noises (open offices), bright lights, stress can all be forms of distraction and minimizing those can be as useful in the long term for performance as minimizing more overt distractions. Your brain can ignore all of the above to a certain extent if it’s chronic. Which is why beauty becomes banal, open offices tolerable, and stress simply something to be banked away until vacation or burnout.
- joeamroo 4y ago
  I had similar idea, if women are such a distraction in islamic countries (I'm a muslim fyi) then surely making their beauty as banal as possible by allowing them to express it rather than conceal it would serve the purpose of modesty/ignoring distractions?
kaichanvong 4y ago
in today's society there is twitter, "social-networking" instantly (sometimes stupidly) in chat messages and of course scripted video and film. A great conversation to avoid this effect!
- amelius 4y ago
  How about ads?
  - kaichanvong 4y ago
    some things can be similar to "film"

8bitsrule 4y ago

Call it the 'great music' effect, and compare long-term close listeners to superficial listeners, and then I'll be all ears about the 'enhancements' to be gained. Music is a universal language of feelings. Some speak it haltingly, with maybe some 'hot flashes'. Some readily speak fluently with such nuance, grace, meaning, that profound experiences result. Regardless of genre, that language and its refinements can recognized by many who have listened closely enough to comprehend. Each accomplished composer has a connection with some authentic source.